(Original post by marcusfox)
Re the bit in bold, how have you come to this conclusion?

I suppose the gun magically appeared at the scene somehow then.

How have you come to the conclusion he was innocent and unarmed?

There was a gun at the scene witch the sock it was inside did not even have his fingerprints on. My sceptesism comes from police lies. They first told us that duggan shot first. And then they took the taxi to a police station rather then leaving it for DNA testing.

I do not trust the ipcc report and we should all be cautious when reading propaganda on the case.

(Original post by Dux_Helvetica)
Assassinated? Give me a break. Politicians are assassinated, not low-to-middle ranking drug dealers and small-time thugs. He got what was coming to him. Good bloody riddance.

(Original post by unclej)
There was a gun at the scene witch the sock it was inside did not even have his fingerprints on. My sceptesism comes from police lies. They first told us that duggan shot first. And then they took the taxi to a police station rather then leaving it for DNA testing.

I do not trust the ipcc report and we should all be cautious when reading propaganda on the case.

I see, so the gun was not brought to the scene by Duggan?

The alternative is that the police planted it, or that the taxi just happened to coincidentally stop where some other hoodlum had disposed of a gun, both which seem vanishingly unlikely.

(Original post by unclej)
The world would be better off with more dealers and less politicians.

While some politicians may be rotten, are you actually serious?

Do you know what happens to the money given to most dealers for the purchase of drugs? It goes towards funding gangs and leads to violence and turf wars in inner cities. Not to mention the addictions of people who have been ruthlessly dealt crack/heroin/other highly addictive drugs. I'm sure John Lennon would not have approved.

(Original post by unclej)
the police are racist liars trying to cover up their mess, by convincing people it was all for the best.

It angers me that you've all fallen for bull-s that suggests mark duggan somehow deserved to die

As to whether he was rightly shot, that will come out in the inquest of course. But I doubt very much that he would be dead today if he had chosen a different path.

If he hadn't bought a gun, and been on his way somewhere with it, then the police would not have been tailing him, would not have needed to use armed police to stop him and he would almost certainly not have been shot.

There is another thing to consider also. If the police had not done what they did, it is quite possible that he would have continued on his way with the weapon to shoot someone dead. Of course, we can only suggest what might have happened after the event, but those defending him have to answer some very tough questions as to the hypothesis that he was quite likely on his way to shoot someone dead with it.

(Original post by Skip_Snip)
Can I ask why you're defending so much? Did you know him? If it's a matter of people falling for media lies, you must be angry a lot ..

ETA: I'm not saying I think any media lies are connected with the case, I was just curious

I probably am over defending him.
Some of the comments on here suggesting an innocent man deserved to die have irritated me.
And you're right. Maybe angry is the wrong word. Just media lies that seem to turn people in such a way. It irritates me

(Original post by unclej)
I probably am over defending him.
Some of the comments on here suggesting an innocent man deserved to die have irritated me.
And you're right. Maybe angry is the wrong word. Just media lies that seem to turn people in such a way. It irritates me

Not innocent by a long shot.

If you know something that we don't, then all well and good. But like the guy above said, you can't base your decision purely on a contrarian basis due to the fact that the media sometimes lie or that the police were somehow racist.

(Original post by marcusfox)
As to whether he was rightly shot, that will come out in the inquest of course. But I doubt very much that he would be dead today if he had chosen a different path.

If he hadn't bought a gun, and been on his way somewhere with it, then the police would not have been tailing him, would not have needed to use armed police to stop him and he would almost certainly not have been shot.

There is another thing to consider also. If the police had not done what they did, it is quite possible that he would have continued on his way with the weapon to shoot someone dead. Of course, we can only suggest what might have happened after the event, but those defending him have to answer some very tough questions as to the hypothesis that he was quite likely on his way to shoot someone dead with it.

Did they deserve to die?

Mark duggan had never shown any sign of intending to commit a violent crime or any previous offences. It's insulting to suggest he would have gone on to kill someone. He would have more likely gone on to be a valued member of his community and a loving farther. The racist police robbed him of that chance

(Original post by unclej)
Mark duggan had never shown any sign of intending to commit a violent crime or any previous offences. It's insulting to suggest he would have gone on to kill someone. He would have more likely gone on to be a valued member of his community and a loving farther. The racist police robbed him of that chance

Obtaining an illegal weapon and going off somewhere with it loaded and ready to use is an indication of precisely that.

(Original post by Dux_Helvetica)
While some politicians may be rotten, are you actually serious?

Do you know what happens to the money given to most dealers for the purchase of drugs? It goes towards funding gangs and leads to violence and turf wars in inner cities. Not to mention the addictions of people who have been ruthlessly dealt crack/heroin/other highly addictive drugs. I'm sure John Lennon would not have approved.

(Original post by unclej)
No it is not there is no evidence that he would of used the weapon.

So what?

Carrying an illegal weapon, loaded, is evidence that you intend to use it for its intended function if if the need arises, or intent to use it at a later time. Indeed, because the penalty for doing so is so high if caught, why would you carry one if you did not intend to use it to kill or at least threaten to kill someone with it?

No one is going to have definitive proof that he was on his way to use the weapon unless he publicly stated this intention before the fact, and unsurprisingly, it's quite common for those who do use illegal weapons in the commission of a crime to not publicly state their intentions before the event.

In fact, they go to great lengths to disguise their intentions.

I wonder why this could be?

However, it is quite common for people who are in possession of illegal weapons to use those illegal weapons in the commission of crimes, and carrying such is a reliable indicator of intent.

Given the above, we are entitled to draw inferences about the motives of people who carry illegal weapons.

The important part of this story is that it's his mother who's said this and she's obviously biased toward the "innocence" of her son. I think we should leave the accusations and enquiry to non-biased individuals to be honest.